Joe165 Wrote:
Jan 07, 2014 1:07 PM
One other common argument used by liberals to justify redistribution is that wealthier people own more because they have benefited from the infrastructure (such as roads) to create their wealth, so they should pay more. One answer to that is that they certainly are paying more. Even people advocating a "flat tax" generally mean some kind proportional tax. A true "flat tax" would mean for example that everyone pays $100, and that's it. No serious politician of either party is suggesting that. But lets consider the road example, and restrict it to roads to simplify the logical argument. Say there are 2 people, Joe and Bill G. Say that Joe uses the roads just to drive to work to earn an average salary, and Bill G. uses them by hiring trucks to drive around and deliver his computers to stores, thus making billions. :-) So how much more does Bill G. owe for this? In one sense nothing, because there is nothing preventing Joe from starting his own business and using the roads to deliver his products. But say that you want to count the fact that Bill G.'s trucks are wearing down the roads faster than Joe's once-per-day commute. In that case, the fair thing is to charge a usage tax for the road, and charge Bill G. for exactly what he is getting. The problem is that Democrats kind of use it as an infinite tab that we can charge to business owners, regardless of their actual usage of the infrastructure. That is not fair. Another kind of argument might be that there are intangibles such as military protection for life and property against foreign invasion, or the fact of having the rule of law itself. But you can't charge one person more for those things than the other. Both Joe and Bill W. value their life and the general peace the same amount - just about infinite. Those are the natural rights granted to man by his Creator, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.